Conal Tuohy wrote:
>>
>> In German catalogs, that's exactly what we've been doing all the time,
>> always wondering why U.S. catalogs don't do the same. Or at least, to be
>> fair, why MARC data doesn't include at least the authority number along
>> with the name. IF Germany switches over to MARC, it will do just that.
>
> It certainly puzzles me, as someone from a non-library background.
>
> Is it actually allowed within MARC? Is it allowed in the AACR2 rules? Or
> is just a question of convention? Do you know?
>
Just take any LC record and look for the control number in the 100.
It's not there. Bad enough, but up until now, it _cannot_ even be there.
MARC21 provides no subfield for it.
The new suggestion is in MARC Proposal 2007/06:
http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2007/2007-06.html#p1
It proposes a new subfield
$0 -- Authority record control number (R)
for all those fields that are for authority controlled content,
beginning with the 100 all the way down to 754.
This is proposed because it hasn't been "allowed" in MARC so far.
But German data does contain this element, and thus it has to go
somewhere in MARC unless we were happy with losing it, which we are not.
AACR2 has no business with authority control numbers, it just
asks you to be consistent with your headings. How you manage that
is outside its scope.
B.Eversberg
Received on Fri Sep 07 2007 - 01:22:01 EDT